Interesting! well..unfortunaltey i am a sever smoker* i am almsot 36, smoking since 18. packa day. marlboros. 2001, my mother passed away after yaear
and a half of beng diagnosed with stage 4 lung caner. the docotrs wanted too know how much she smoked and for how long. she was 54. my father, too got
lung cancer, stage 4, diagnoed, new years day, 2007..passed janusary 19, 2007. 3 weeks into chemo, his left lung collapsed and that was that. he was
59. both had been average smokers sicne their mid teens. Kool ciggarettes, the both of em, lucky strikes, when my father was a kid.
His mother..stage 4 lung cacner when found, passed 1989. dotors had to remove a lung and half from her, she was already 78 years old. she wa
basically a vegetable, brain dead, but the doctors in sacramento kept her on life support, despite her wil stating too pull the plug if ever
comatized* 3 week lawyer battle over that.
smoking is NO good, and let us not forget...nicotine is 4-5 times more addicitve than heroin..it just donst leave/have the same effects heroin
does. thier IS no good ciggarette*

Thank you for sharing that with us here on ATS. I myself am a recent smoker, I work as pretty much Canadian TSA and only picked up the nasty habit as
a way to cope with stress and boredom on breaks at work.. So been smoking for almost four years now.. Time for a new job, me thinks lol

I'd like to know in what country the tobacco was grown that was tested.
If it was grown downwind of Chernobyl or near a nuke testing area, or even in areas close to a nuclear reactor, then I'm sure that would explain the
high levels.

This has been known for ages and is no conspiracy. The dangers of smoking are not novel enough, hence much of the masses accept it and do not care
about the risk that smoking brings for themselves, and others. Instead they would rather blame other people and incidents for all their problems -
like Chernobyl. Why? Because it's novel and you can blame someone else for their problems while ignoring their own stupid behavior.

You just posted a link that in my reading does not prove that it was a hoax. At all.

Radioactivity of tobacco leaves and radiation dose induced from smoking.

The radioactivity in tobacco leaves collected from 15 different regions of Greece and before cigarette production was studied in order to find out any
association between the root uptake of radionuclides from soil ground by the tobacco plants and the effective dose induced to smokers from cigarette
tobacco due to the naturally occurring primordial radionuclides , such as 226Ra and 210Pb of the uranium series and 228Ra of the thorium series and/or
man-made radionuclides, such as 137Cs of Chernobyl origin. Gamma-ray spectrometry was applied using Ge planar and coaxial type detectors of high
resolution and high efficiency. It was concluded that the activities of the radioisotopes of radium, 226Ra and 228Ra in the tobacco leaves reflected
their origin from the soil by root uptake rather than fertilizers used in the cultivation of tobacco plants. Lead-210 originated from the air and was
deposited onto the tobacco leaves and trapped by the trichomes. Potassium-40 in the tobacco leaves was due to root uptake either from soil or from
fertilizer. The cesium radioisotopes 137Cs and 134Cs in tobacco leaves were due to root uptake and not due to deposition onto the leaf foliage as they
still remained in soil four years after the Chernobyl reactor accident, but were absent from the atmosphere because of the rain washout
(precipitation) and gravitational settling. The annual effective dose due to inhalation for adults (smokers) for 226Ra varied from 42.5 to 178.6
microSv/y (average 79.7 microSv/y), while for 228Ra from 19.3 to 116.0 microSv/y (average 67.1 microSv/y) and for 210Pb from 47.0 to 134.9 microSv/y
(average 104.7 microSv/y), that is the same order of magnitude for each radionuclide. The sum of the effective doses of the three radionuclides
varied from 151.9 to 401.3 microSv/y (average 251.5 microSv/y). The annual effective dose from 137Cs of Chernobyl origin was three orders of magnitude
lower as it varied from 70.4 to 410.4 nSv/y (average 199.3 nSv/y).

DO you really think that they so concern and caring about people's heath in telling them to stop smoking. There is more to it than meets the eye.Many
years ago there was an article saying that smokers are less subjective to manipulation through the many methods of the powers mongers.It had something
to do with the nicotine.Why do you think that they are going to such trouble to force people to stop smoking. So long as a person limits his smoking
and do not over do it to the extent that they overdose their body with nicotine. They are much worse forms of health hazards on the streets that you
cannot notice.Do you realize that you are inhaling the chemical fumes, dust of cars,trucks,buses and other forms of pollution that will will
eventually take it's toll on you without you realising where you you accumulated these poisons. We have notice that smokers seem to be more aware of
the nonsense that the governments are putting out.There was a story about a monk who live in the mountains from a young age.One day he went to the
city and stay there for a few years.He fell victim to cancer.

well thats what i learned about smoking ciggs. sadly i am severly addicted. i still remember my first ciggarette, a marlboro light.
went through first relationship brek up, long distance, at age 18, woman same age i really liked. had another guy hidden from me back in europe..old
mischevous friends i hung out with moved back into neighbrohood..saw them smoking and thought screw it i'll do it too, make me feel better. sure
enough..i wasnt depressed no more after that one cigg. still remember feeling the nicotine go up my arms n veins into m head..was like i was on cloud
9!
me pseronally, its a filthy habbit now. 2 front teeth are turning blackish near gumline, tar, which ive coughed up time to time int he past, mostly
from lucky strikes. newports, the few times i ever smoked em, cause me to cough up phlem and blood mixed in it. breath is foul too and teh smoke
lingers on ya, especially if your working hard, and sweating..it smells worse later. with satge 4 cancer..hey both had less than 20% survivabilty,
with chemo. maybe 8 months at most. doctors were right. having too see them every day, loose thier hair, skin would turn blue, being nausiated and
confused from the chemo..ciggarettes suck. when my father passed, i was s effinpissed you cannot imagine how much anger i had in me..my first
thoughts were to go play sniper with the CEO's of philip morris or marlboro..but of course, know thats on the insane side and crazy to do. tehy got
away with murder* thiers NO such thing as a safe cigg*
i always wanted to email them, and let em know you owe me 2 dead parents before thier time* but figured ide get sued or watched or something.

Actually I have to step in and stop you this is the one time I know more about this than most people. My good friends grandfather worked as a
scientist for Phillip Morris for a long time and was actually the guy who figured out how to kill the tobacco beetle. The pesticide used was derived
from isolating an enzyme or what have you that is actually out of the beetle itself. Go figure the best pesticide for a really hard to kill bug came
from itself

...True story guys I actually met the man. He also invented a flavor for Bubble Yum

ETA: also to the guy who said they smoke pot because it doesn't cause lung cancer you are wrong too burning any plant creates carcinogens so unless
you eat it or vape it your at risk. Vaporizers haven't been used widely enough for long enough for conclusive studies to be done...But there is no
plant combustion

New here and not my policy to knock anyone who doesnt deserve it yet do you really believe that these articles prove anything?

The second link was, not to my surprise, taken from a website called lovingly "The International Smokefree CATALOGUE - YOUR ONE STOP SHOP FOR
SMOKEFREE SOLUTIONS". Really??? Really???

No conflict of interest there huh uh and you have to love the absence of any possible corresponding data, peer review or anything resembling
science.

If I am to believe all of the crap presented in this THREAD then I can reconcile 2 things clearly:

1: monoculture is bad!!!
2: chemicals, especially radiocactive chemicals is what makes the tobacco radioactive simply because the greedy, yes i said it GREEDY MODERN FARMER
and their easy energy modern farming techniques which have made TOTALITARIAN monoculture the standard which invites disease and pests to the point
that they feel radioactive fertilizer is the logical alternative...... insanity yet little pink houses and all that romantic nationalist dodge truck
american apple pie BS when we see them on TV

Oh come on now, If smoking was bad for you surely they wouldn't sell it.....:-P

Im pretty sure it is impossible to prove smoking gives you cancer. Im sure it just increases the risk as everybody has cancer dormant in their bodies.
To compare it to nuclear radiation is a bit extreme, I am saying this as toking on a nice smooth fag.....(I am in the UK) haha!

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
]How does radioactive material get into a cigarette?
The tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive material, particularly lead-210 and polonium-210. The radionuclide content of tobacco
leaves depends heavily on soil conditions and fertilizer use.
Soils that contain elevated radium lead to high radon gas emanations rising into the growing tobacco crop. Radon rapidly decays into a series of
solid, highly radioactive metals (radon decay products). These metals cling to dust particles which in turn are collected by the sticky tobacco
leaves. The sticky compound that seeps from the trichomes is not water soluble, so the particles do not wash off in the rain. There they stay, through
curing process, cutting, and manufacture into cigarettes.Lead-210 and Polonium-210 can be absorbed into tobacco leaves directly from the soil. But
more importantly, fine, sticky hairs (called trichomes) on both sides of tobacco leaves grab airborne radioactive particles.

For example, phosphate fertilizers, favored by the tobacco industry, contain radium and its decay products (including lead-210 and polonium-210). When
phosphate fertilizer is spread on tobacco fields year after year, the concentration of lead-210 and polonium-210 in the soil rises.

we also have the green out here in hawaii (legal for medical use), but after reviewing this thread i wonder if this same process of radioactive uptake
by trichomes on tobacco is also happening with marijuana with the use of chemical fertilizers?

As was mentioned, tobacco has always seemed to be the scapegoat. If industrial pollution were given the same blanket treatment as tobacco, there would
be no industry in America. Of all the things in this world to vilify, tobacco is right near the safest. Even with the settlements paid out by the
tobacco industry, they have lost nothing, being since 1 smoker now pays what 3 smokers used to. Very clever business model. Everything gets blamed on
second hand smoke. Industrial pollution is safe though. If you get lung cancer, it was because someone around you smoked, if there was never any
smokers in your life, then it's just a mystery why. Never any connection made to industrial pollution. If cities like LA, Phoenix, Houston, etc., can
develop thick brown hazes due to emissions, how can that be linked to smoking and not pollution? What causes more cancer?

My theory is that it's propaganda and lies being used to cover up the real cause. Maybe big tobacco took one for the team in order to shut down
litigation against the other big corps. It makes sense to me. If smoking can be blamed for every respiratory ailment, the others are off the hook
then. Would that surprise anyone?

Having been a smoker for over 35years I find it all a bit pointless in spending more money on doing research into the harm of smoking. Its common
sense that smoking is going to cause you health problems. Wether its got radiation in it or not.
Over the years I have tried several times to give up without success. But since Nov when I started to use one of those so called Ecigs(Vaporiser) I
havent smoked a cigerette.

In reply to 1Starmans "Many years ago there was an article saying that smokers are less subjective to manipulation through the many methods of the
powers mongers.It had something to do with the nicotine"

I feel their maybe something to this as here in Australia it is illegal to buy the nicotine juice for an Ecig. Its ok to buy the nic free juice to
use but any with the nicotine is banned. They reckon that not enough research has been done into it. Surley its the chemicals in the juice that we are
allowed to use that need the research done on, plenty of research as been done on nicotine already. So why stop us from using juice with nicotine
added.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.